Professional Documents
Culture Documents
_______________
* EN BANC.
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
QUISUMBING, J.:
1
For automatic review is the consolidated judgment of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baguio City, Branch 6, dated
September 17, 1999, in Criminal Cases Nos. 15800-R and
15822-R, involving violations
2
of Section 8, Article II, of the
Dangerous Drugs Law. Since appellant was acquitted in
the second case, we focus on the first case, where appellant
has been found guilty and sentenced to death and fined one
million pesos.
The decretal portion of the trial courtÊs decision reads:
_______________
427
The City Jail Warden is, therefore, directed to release the accused
Modesto Tee in connection with Crim. Case No. 15822-R unless held
on other charges.
COST(S) DE OFFICIO.
3
SO ORDERED.‰
Appellant is a Chinese national in his forties, a
businessman, and a resident of Baguio City. A raid
conducted by operatives of the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI) and Philippine National Police
Narcotics Command (PNP NARCOM) at premises allegedly
leased by appellant and at his residence yielded huge
quantities of marijuana.
On July 20, 1998, appellant moved to quash the search
warrant on the ground that it was too general and that the
NBI had not complied with the requirements for the
issuance of a valid search warrant. The pendency of said
motion, however, did not stop the filing of the appropriate
charges against appellant. In an information dated July 24,
1998, docketed as Criminal Case No. 15800-R, the City
Prosecutor of Baguio City charged Modesto Tee, alias
„Estoy Tee,‰ with illegal possession of marijuana, allegedly
committed as follows:
„That on or about the 1st day of July, 1998 in the City of Baguio,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
abovenamed accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully,
feloniously and knowingly have in his possession the following, to
wit:
_______________
428
428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Tee
„That on or about the 1st day of July, 1998, in the City of Baguio,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
abovenamed accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully,
feloniously and knowingly have in his possession the following, to
wit:
·Six hundred two (602) bricks of dried flowering tops separately
contained in twenty-six (26) boxes and a yellow sack, weighing
591.81 kilograms
a prohibited drug, without the authority of law to possess, in
violation of the above-cited provision of law.
6
CONTRARY TO LAW.‰
„That on or about the 1st day of July, 1998 in the City of Baguio,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
abovenamed accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully,
feloniously and knowingly have in his possession the following, to
wit:
5 Id., at p. 26.
6 Id., at p. 32.
7 Rollo, p. 32.
429
_______________
430
_______________
431
_______________
432
_______________
28 Rollo, p. 79.
433
_______________
434
_______________
435
40
the warrant is being issued. Said warrant imposes a
meaningful restriction upon the objects to be seized by the
officers serving the warrant. Thus, it prevents exploratory
searches, which might be violative of the Bill of Rights.
Appellant next assails the warrant for merely stating
that he should be searched, as he could be guilty of
violation of Republic Act No. 6425. Appellant claims that
this is a sweeping statement as said statute lists a number
of offenses with respect to illegal drugs. Hence, he
contends, said warrant is a general warrant is thus
unconstitutional.
For the appellee, the OSG points out that the warrant
clearly states that appellant has in his possession and
control marijuana or Indian hemp, in violation of Section 8
of Republic Act No. 6425.
We 41have carefully scrutinized Search Warrant No. 415
(7-98), and we find that 42
it is captioned „For Violation of
R.A. 6425, as amended.‰ It is clearly stated in the body of
the warrant that „there is probable cause to believe that a
case for violation of R.A. 6425, as amended, otherwise
known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as further
amended by R.A. 7659 has been and is being committed by
one MODESTO TEE a.k.a. ESTOY TEE of Km. 6,
Dontogan Bry., Green Valley, Sto. Tomas, Baguio City by
having in his possession and control an UNDETERMINED
AMOUNT OF MARIJUANA 43or INDIAN HEMP in violation
of the aforementioned law.‰ In an earlier case, we held
that though the specific section of the Dangerous Drugs
Law is not pinpointed, „there is no question at all of the
specific offense alleged to have been
44
committed as a basis
for the finding of probable cause.‰ AppellantÊs averment
is, therefore, baseless. Search Warrant No. 415 (7-98)
appears clearly issued for one offense, namely, illegal
possession of marijuana.
Appellant next faults the Judge who issued Search
Warrant No. 415 (7-98) for his failure to exhaustively
examine the applicant and his witness. Appellant points
out that said magistrate should not have swallowed all of
AbratiqueÊs statements·hook, line, and
_______________
40 Bache & Co. (Phils.), Inc. v. Ruiz, 37 SCRA 823, 835 (1971).
41 Exh. „Y‰, Folder of Exhibits, p. 73.
42 Ibid.
43 Ibid.
44 Olaes v. People, 155 SCRA 486, 491 (1987).
436
_______________
437
_______________
xxx
(m) That official duty has been regularly performed.
_______________
439
_______________
440
_______________
441
_______________
72 Art. III. Sec. 14. (2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall
be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the
right to be heard by himself and by counsel, to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy (italics
supplied), impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face,
and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses
and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment,
trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided
that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.
73 Kalaw v. Apostol and Alcazar, 64 Phil. 852, 857 (1937).
74 Martin v. Ver, et al., 123 SCRA 745, 751 (1983).
75 Republic Act No. 8493, SEC. 6. Time Limit for Trial.·In criminal
cases involving persons charged of a crime, except those subject to the
Rules on Summary Procedure, or where the penalty prescribed by law
does not exceed six (6) months imprisonment, a fine of one thousand
(P1,000.00) or both, irrespective of other imposable penalties, the justice
or judge shall, after consultation with the public prosecutor and the
counsel for the accused, set the case for continuous trial on a weekly or
other short-term trial calendar at the earliest possible time so as to
ensure speedy trial. In no case shall the entire trial period exceed one
hundred
442
_______________
eighty (180) days from the first day of trial, except as otherwise
authorized by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court pursuant to
Section 3, Rule 22 of the Rules of Court.
76 People v. Tampal, 314 Phil. 35; 244 SCRA 202 (1995).
77 Que v. Cosico, 177 SCRA 410, 416 (1989), citing Kalaw v. Apostol, et
al., 64 Phil. 852 (1937).
78 Conde v. Rivera and Unson, 45 Phil. 650, 652 (1924).
79 Andres, et al. v. Cacdac, Jr., et al., 113 SCRA 216, 223 (1982), cit-ing
Acebedo v. Sarmiento, 26 SCRA 247 (1970).
80 Records, p. 157.
81 People v. Tampal, 314 Phil. 35; 244 SCRA 202 (1995).
443
_______________
444
445
_______________
91 9 Phil. 48, 51 (1907). See also United States v. Cinco, 8 Phil. 388,
390 (1907), citing United States v. Vizquera, et al., 4 Phil. 380 (1905).
92 People v. Verra, G.R. No. 134732, May 29, 2002, p. 1, 382 SCRA 542.
446
_______________
447
_______________
95 People v. Ting Uy, G.R. Nos. 144506-07, April 11, 2002, p. 11, 380
SCRA 700, citing Manalili v. Court of Appeals, 280 SCRA 400 (1997).
96 United States v. Tin Masa, 17 Phil. 463, 465 (1910).
97 People v. Baludda, 318 SCRA 503, 511 (1999), citing United States v.
Bandoc, 23 Phil. 14 (1912).
98 People v. Burton, 335 Phil. 1003, 1025; 268 SCRA 531 (1997).
448
_______________
xxx
xxx
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalty shall
range from prision correccional to reclusion perpetua depending upon the quantity.
xxx
449
_______________
xxx
105 People v. Gatward, 335 Phil. 440, 457; 267 SCRA 785 (1997).
106 See for instance, People v. Samson, G.R. Nos. 139377-78, May 29,
2002, p. 35; 382 SCRA 635.
450
_______________
107 People v. San Juan, G.R. No. 127525, February 15, 2002, p. 12, 377
SCRA 13.
451
Where the warrant was issued not for search of the persons
owning or occupying the premises but only a search of the
premises occupied by them, the search could not be
declared unlawful or in violation of the constitutional
rights of the owner or occupants of the premises because of
the inconsistencies in stating their names. (Uy vs. Bureau
of Internal Revenue, 344 SCRA 36 [2000])
··o0o··